What would that one be? How could you internalize morality (where presumably it wasn't something internal prior)? — Terrapin Station

That is why we are examining it. At this stage we pressuppose everything involved in prelinguistic thought/belief. The concept of "internalization" is admittedly an attempt at psychological speculation. We have made the least progress with this category.

A few variables we've examined are: prelinguistic thought/belief, societal conditioning, ethical authority, and internalization of morality.

@S

We have agreed upon a qualifier, an existential constant by which we can conduct a thought experiment. Where is your qualification? where is your thought? where is your experiment?

This discussion sharply went downhill when it began to be filled with insanely repetitive gibberish about "thought/belief" and the like. — S

Downhill for S, is uphill for everyone else. And, speaking of going downhill, you never addressed the issue with Hume.

Oh look. My fan club has arrived. — creativesoul

Where have they been the last dozen pages?

I haven't read most of what creativesoul wrote. What would you succinctly say that he gives as the source of morals? — Terrapin Station

He could explain himself better. But, he might agree with something like: the source of morals is multifaceted. We have been proceeding methodologically to parse out "common sense conclusions about existential dependency and timeframes".

Half the world thinks causality is a construct of pure reason, half the world thinks causality is an intrinsic property or attribute of Nature thus “existed long before we became aware of it”. — Mww

Don't forget that pure reason is a construct of Nature, and existed long before we became aware of it. :grin:

Moral dumbfounding is believed by some to be evidence for moral intuition.
— praxis

I'd have to see that argument. :wink: — creativesoul

My hypothesis: particular moral intuitions/feelings can be considered morally dumbfounded in certain relations between independent ethical agents.

The last statement seems to be claiming or at least has the consequence of claiming that all evaluations of primitive thought/belief are primarily acquired from culture, and not as a result of the primitive thought/belief. — creativesoul

So, on my view all moral thought/belief is thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. If the converse is also true, if all thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour is moral thought/belief, then we arrive at moral thought/belief prior to language. However, morals are quite a bit different than mere moral thought/belief.

The social aspect is certainly relevant. — creativesoul

A central point.

@praxis
@creativesoul

I can't wait to compile the relevant posts of this discussion. We have made it to 30 pages in less than a month, and for the most, we've not been bogged down in rhetorical bullshit (thanks to the methodology of creative soul).

He doesn't say anything like that. This is simply one way I interpret his philosophy as a whole, especially as taken in its historical context.

As you can see, Hume didn't say anything of the sort. His thesis is that we can never demonstrate the existence of a cause. Again, Hume wrote about human understanding - how we come to know, whether we can know - not about the nature of things. He didn't actually have much to say about metaphysics and ontology, he was mainly concerned with epistemology. — SophistiCat

In a way, his epistemology was his metaphysics - what is known is identical to what is.

I suppose the deadlocks and dreadlocks just can't get along. :cry:

Conscious experience is the source of morals ... because something is moral/immoral if it causes happiness/unhappiness and happiness/unhappiness only exists where there's conscious experience. — luckswallowsall

We have already reconciled this issue over the first twenty pages of excrutiating debate. Simply follow the comments of praxis, creativesoul, and Merkwurdichliebe, and you can see how your claim fits in.

Hmm.. how about this: morals are advice that is given out of concern for another. So morals originate from compassion, and are 'certified' through the nature of change they bring. (There's probably a better way of expressing that idea.) — Couchyam

Join the discussion.

So far we have discovered many necessary but insufficient sources of morals. It cannot be pinned down to one thing . . . We have entered into deeper examinations of societal conditioning as ethical authority, as well as the internalization of that ethical conditioning in both thought/belief and feeling/intuition that is moral in kind. I would categorize compassion under moral feeling/intuition.

(Add. And although one can behave compassionately at the primitive level of prelinguistic thought/belief, it does not become moral in kind until it is mediated by thought/belief that is moral in kind...here in the present conversation, it would be highly relevant to discuss compassion-as-feeling/intuition in the terms of moral thought/belief.)

The notion that morals are a matter of: "giving advice out of concern", implies an ethical authority, and can be explained as a part of the dynamic of societal conditioning. It can be further examined in the light of the authority, in this case, the one that assumes the role of the ethical superior, whose advice is only incidental. But, what is important here, is that which makes him authority - that he imposes "compassion" on the inferior as the ethical right, an assumption that compassion is good to give, to accept, and to be.

Nope. Some types of obstinacy are immovable rocks, unstoppable forces have no effect.

the sacrifice of the first-born was the sacrifice of the most precious thing
— Wayfarer

hm, well that was K's point, that God requires such things of even the most devout. The Jewish God did not particularly redeem the problem by telling Abram he didnt actually have to do it later, in fact, in K's view, that is even more cruel. — ernestm

Actually, K's point was to loosely illustrate the line that divides the ethical life/from the religious. It is crucial to consider how he contrasts Abraham with Aggemmnon.

I would say K is in the middle. He is not as depressing as he is serious.

:rofl:

Moral intuition was characterized as moral knowledge acquired without evidence. — creativesoul

Moral feeling/intuition comes after thought/belief that is moral in kind. This is a part of the process of the internalization of ethical conditioning. At a certain level of exposure to particular ethical thought/belief, it becomes ingrained and unconscious to a degree - habitual.

only mass redebates

We certainly do not demand omniscience as the only possibility for avoiding being dumfounded, do we? — creativesoul

Imo. . .moral dumbfounding is determined by an independent agent from the one that is morally dumbfounded. The morally dumbfound is so hopelessly inured in his moral conviction that there is nothing in existence that can tell against it. From the outside, we can say he is ridiculous, but to him, every ridiculous thing he says makes sense to him.

Wouldn't be much of an experience to be a single celled organism... — creativesoul

Seems like all they really do is masturbate. :lol:

Moral intuition is the product of a pre-existing worldview replete with thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. Habits of thought/belief are habits of mind. Habits of mind yield consequences. Intuition is a consequence of previously formed and re-formed thought/belief. — creativesoul

Couldn't say it better.

I've seen several different notions of 'moral judgment'. On my view, all moral judgments are about what's counts as either acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. It is to think, believe, and/or say that some specific thought, belief, and/or behaviour is one or the other(acceptable/unacceptable). — creativesoul

It is important to address how moral judgement can, in some cases, become a result of irrational intuition/feeling. It is here that we find the possibility of moral dumbfounding, in that the operation of irrational feeling/intuition cannot be adequately rationalized in terms of thought/belief. I use the example of Socrates to show that despite all the reasons he provides to justify his moral obligation to drink the hemlock, in the eyes of Athens (qua. the entity that ethically opposes Socrates), his rationale is rather unintelligible and quite insane.

The question needs attention, my friend. — creativesoul

That was a typo, thanks for helping me. :scream: Now it's fixed. Just seeing if you were paying attention.. :grin:

This might be the central question. I think I gave very unresolved answers, I will be sure to elaborate...

Thanks for the link. :up:

My hypothesis would be that thought approaches belief as its resultant outcome approaches certainty. — BrianW

Mine would be that belief is the power of thought to express infinite possibility.

I think that this is something we could possibly discuss as civilized primates. :grin:

How close is thought to belief?

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

I do not do "doing". Oops, I did it. :snicker:

I never opine, but sometimes I might on occasion temporarily believe something.

Like K's choice to break off his engagement with Regime. The defining event of his life. — Amity

That is definitely a defining moment for K. But, it propelled him to do something very unique, to publish ideas that focus your attention back upon yourself. Something rarely done in modern philosophy.

But still, a doubt will remain as to how much of it is playing a game... — Amity

I also must point out that he regarded all his writing as a thought experiment, so in a way, everything he said was indeed a game.

I know you know that. But I said it anyway. :grin:

Intensity: can be a high degree of emotional excitement, depth of feeling. Or great energy of thought, inward passion or obsession...or anxiety. It will be fascinating to read what K has to say for himself.
But still, a doubt will remain as to how much of it is playing a game... — Amity

He is quite adamant about "seriousness". He speaks of it repeatedly. But his "shit talking" is on par with Nietzsche, so I can get why his seriousness can be doubted.

To begin, I noticed you referencing the interpretations of others. Reading what another says about Kierkegaard is not the same as reading him directly. His words have an effect, and in no writer prior to him are you presented with that which is known as, "stream of consciousness". He is truly a madman.

(There is more . . .)

Whether gods exist or not...is not influenced or impacted by whether or not the species known as homo sapiens knows...or even suspects it.

Gods either exist or not.

No way to know...unless they are personal gods and want humans to know. — Frank Apisa

You don't really believe that, do you?

Ideology is just a word we use to insult the beliefs we disagree with. — YuZhonglu

It's a nice qualifier if you wish to discount ideas that potentially adumbrate nasty consequences.

Good God, I hate speculation, but I love to speculate. :kiss:

Big Bang and Gravity are the new gods. Praise be to them. :clap:

I couldn't help myself. :grin:

I also think of the relation of the masculine to the feminine. Feminine devotion also imposes a unique qualitative importance on the individual. That is in contrast to the masculine fidelity, which is obligatory - a matter of honor. Devotion implies a giving away or unintelligible empathy, while fidelity implies a sort of taking or fulfilling. I believe the feminine to be the greatest power that exists.

the Big Bang which is said to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago but was only discovered in 1687 by Isaac Newton. It was then reformulated more accurately by Albert Einstein in the 1900's. — TheMadFool

Seems to me, gravity has only existed for about 300 years, and the big bang around a century.

Get it? :grin:

I would say that the former makes ethically neutral assessments of the world (analytical and speculative) — Merkwurdichliebe

This is the category of thought our criterion is restricted to. All talk of the "ought" is neither here nor there, but only an assessment. (This point is for others, not @creativesoul).